Cargando…

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in daily clinical practice: A single-centre experience

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence has raised concerns regarding the safety of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (E-BVS) (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Following these data, the use of this device has diminished in the Netherlands; however, daily practice data are lim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Remkes, W. S., Hermanides, R. S., Kennedy, M. W., Fabris, E., Kaplan, E., Ottervanger, J. P., van ’t Hof, A. W. J., Kedhi, E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5653537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28913627
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-017-1038-4
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Recent evidence has raised concerns regarding the safety of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (E-BVS) (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Following these data, the use of this device has diminished in the Netherlands; however, daily practice data are limited. Therefore we studied the incidence of safety and efficacy outcomes with this device in daily clinical practice in a single large tertiary centre in the Netherlands. METHODS: All E‑BVS treated patients were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel non-fatal myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and clinically-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR). The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite scaffold thrombosis. RESULTS: Between October 2013 and January 2017, 105 patients were treated with 147 E‑BVS. This population contained 42 (40%) patients with diabetes mellitus and 43 (40.9%) undergoing treatment for acute coronary syndrome, and thus represents a high-risk patient cohort. Mean follow-up was 19.8 months. Intravascular imaging guidance during scaffold implantation was used in 64/105 (43.5%) patients. The primary endpoint (TLF) occurred in 3 (2.9%) patients. All-cause mortality and cardiac mortality occurred in 2 (2%) and 0 (0%) patients respectively. TV-MI occurred in 2 patients (1.9%): both were periprocedural and not related to the BVS implantation. TLR occurred in 1 patient (1.0%) during follow-up. No definite scaffold thrombosis occurred during follow-up. CONCLUSION: This single-centre study examining the real-world experience of E‑BVS implantation in a high-risk population shows excellent procedural safety and long-term clinical outcomes.